When pressed later in the thread, he noted that "the purpose [of the debate] is not to convince other leaders of anything - its to let the viewers know what you're willing to fight for, especially to reassure those who are already voting or close to voting for you."

(I can't believe I just had to look up the "hr" tag in HTML)

Now's probably a good time for a couple of my off-the-cuff election thoughts:

The "Christmas campaign": the Liberals didn't seem too concerned with this respect for the deep beliefs of the Christian faith when they overturned civilization's entire marriage history in favour of pretend sodomite unions. Back then the talk was about "separation of church and state" (an American concept that not only doesn't appear in the Canadian constitution, but also doesn't mean what it's speakers believe it means), how Canada no longer can rely on its Judeo-Christian beliefs (or its Muslim or Hindu beliefs either; ed), that we live in a secular society, etc. ad nauseum. But now suddenly, with the "sacred holiday season" underway the Liberals care about Christmas even if they're too scared to actually say it.

What precisely is the opposition to a Christmas campaign anyways? You already have Salvation Army and carrollers going door-to-door, what's so wrong with having the Green Party ruin a perfectly good afternoon at the same time. Besides, Christmas is just one day anyways, perhaps two. Jews say 8, and the song says 12. Yet still, the "holiday season" is just that, a period with a few holidays. Ukranian Christmas doesn't even fall until later, possibly after the election (just enough time for people to angrily tell me that its ORTHODOX, not Ukranian, Christmas... or that I spelled Ukrainian wrong). What the holiday season is known for, of course, is for its avarice, its dedication to shopping until you drop. This is a pasttime best reserved for women and metrosexuals, neither of whom should likely be voting anyways (and en masse don't), so again there's nothing really inteferring with having an election during this time. Partly this is an excuse only manufactured to go along with the desire of voters not to "have" to go to the polls. They don't want to have any elections at any time of the year, and this is just the excuse to go with this one. I don't know what's worse, that we live in one of the only countries on earth where democratically electing the leadership is seen as more of a chore and a nuisance instead of a hard-won right, or that according to the polling results some third of the population believes steadfastly that we shouldn't be having any elections ever as it merely interferes with the Liberals state of natural rule. And then people wonder why I want to have Alberta separate at the first convenient opportunity (or Tuesday, if tomorrow doesn't work for people). (It's good I guess that I have no readers, or some smart-alec would observe the Conservatives reign and the percentage of the vote they typically receive)

The Western Standard blog covered this: Vote Liberal: Paul Martin LOVES Canada More Than YOU Do. This is another thing that makes me wish I either was in charge of the Conservative Party, or that I was the leader of another party (its a shame that a certified genius such as myself hasn't even been approached by Christian Heritage yet) that could go out and immediately offer the quick comebacks that play well on television and cut to the absurdity of the Liberal mindset. In this case, when Paul Martin gushed about his love for Canada, Stephen Harper should have been on television half an hour later boldy stating "Paul Martin says he loves Canada. If that's true Paul, then how badly would you govern a country you didn't like? I guess its true that you always hurt the ones you love, because your management of Canada and her public pursestrings is ludicrous and despicable."

The media has ignored the "Harper's Hidden Agenda" stuff that they used last time...and against Stockwell in 2000, and Preston in 1997, and probably Preston in 1993 if anybody in Toronto had known who he was. Is this good or bad? I can't help but think its bad: if the media hasn't upped the smear campaign yet it must mean they don't think of Harper as a serious threat. And I don't mean a threat to win the election, I mean a threat to instilling good government. The two are, I believe, mutually exclusive: the possibility of one logically precludes the possibility of the other.

As far as I know, this Vancouver Sun article has been largely ignored by the blog and editorial crowd. A day care centre that featured marijuana and illegal handguns. Now is that the sort of thing the Liberals are in favour of or against? Boggles the mind, really. Forget the inefficiency of the gun registry as an argument against a national daycare program: Paul Martin wants to give huge amounts of federal money to daycares that might easily end up stockpiling the weapons he's simultaneously trying to ban.

Has anybody been visited by the parties? I live in an apartment and therefore miss out on the fun, but I haven't heard any word of any parties visiting anywhere. Now I heard that the candidates are actually trying to avoid having anybody home (sorry, can't find a link to that), but they are at least supposed to be able to deliver a flyer or two. Geesh.

Why can't some clever television programmer come up with a "other parties" leadership debate, like on CTV or CHUM. Hell, even the aforementioned Showcase could likely get away with it. The Green Party might not like being included with the other no-chance-of-a-seat parties, but they can always use the exposure. Wouldn't it be more entertaining to watch the Canadian Action Party, Freedom Party and the Cosmopolitan Party take on the Christian Heritage, Marxist-Leninist, Libertarian, Marijuana, Confederation of Regions, and Socialist Parties? And the Western Canada Concept and Party for the Commonwealth of Canada in there mixing things up. Since all these groups want is for enough voters to plonk down $1.75 worth of electoral gold to get their deposits back, everybody wins.

I can't believe I know this much about the campaign when I'm sans internet and without any desire to watch news on the 3 fuzzy channels I receive in this dank urine-soaked hellhole.

If the talking heads are so upset about American "interference" in our election, why do they gloss over our interference in theirs? Granted most of the western world was guilty of the latter defence, but just because French and German politicians and citizens were acting like louses doesn't mean we have to too. The fact that Bush is a far better President for Canadian interests than John Kerry would have been is in my opinion beside the point. If we didn't want them bothering us, we shouldn't have bothered them. And isn't it also fair when going on about Focus in the Family using its Canadian chapter to point out that Michael Moore is in fact guilty of violating the Elections Act in campaigning against right-wing candidates and parties, versus groups just doing legal things in a way that ruffles feathers.

The NDP are running a former governor-general in Manitoba, the first time such a thing has ever happened. Constitutional scholars (who apparently weren't around to tell the Supreme Court that fudge-packing wasn't enshrined in the Charter) all agree that while Schreyer is violating a long-standing precident, it is not in fact illegal for him to run. Two things come to mind: first, isn't it a bigger problem that its not illegal for a convicted jewel thief to run for MP? Secondly, there is no law against a GG running for office, it merely violates a gentleman's agreement. This is possible because nobody in the New Democrat Party is in fact a gentleman.

I still have to remember to book January 23rd off. I'm hoping to be in Jasper the weekend before, but I still want the election day off so that I can lay in bed with a bottle of Jack Daniels plotting the day Alberta finally can get out of Soviet Canuckistan

Somebody at work who's a little less right-wing than I (the unthinkable, I know) had a plan for what he thought the Americans should do to teach us to stop bad-mouthing them: close down the border to everything. Take the hit in oil and syrup imports, and starve us of everything else for a couple weeks and watch our economy hit the road. And then ask Canadians if they think its wise to support a government that is vaguely hostile. He even had an idea what the press release should read: America is only in the business of engaging in unconditional trade relations with friendly governments. The Canadian people are free to choose whichever course they see fit, however we do not believe it is in our interests to continue to prop up an unstable economy under the control of a hostile leadership. It may not actually swing the election, but it would remind Ontarians of something every Westerner to benefit from the FTA already knows: our standard of living depends on friendly relations with the US, and those friendly relations net big fringe benefits. After his whole scheme (which I suggested be perfect if the US pegged January 24th as the day to decide the state of the border), I'm left a little unsure if this is put forth by a friend or foe of open borders.